CHIEF Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI has granted the request of the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit of former Rep. Andrew S. Salas who has challenged the federal ban on cockfighting in the Northern Marianas.
In a 15-page decision and order on Friday, Judge Manglona said, “Plaintiff’s proffer of providing more facts about how deeply entrenched cockfighting is in the CNMI would not cure the deficiency. Such amendment would be futile because the federal interests in regulating interstate commerce, preventing the spread of avian flu, and ensuring the humane treatment of animals outweigh the degree of intrusion into the internal affairs of the CNMI as it relates to the tradition of cockfighting.”
According to the USDOJ, the complaint’s legal theories about the power of U.S. Congress to prohibit cockfighting in the CNMI are meritless.
“The Animal Welfare Act and its amendments apply to the NMI pursuant to Section 502(a)(2) of the Covenant, which specifies that all laws of general applicability in existence as of January 9, 1978, and subsequent amendments to those laws, apply with equal force to the Northern Mariana Islands,” the USDOJ stated.
“And whatever may be said about the Animal Welfare Act’s prior exception for cockfighting, there can be no doubt that the broader ban on other forms of animal fighting applied to and operated uniformly in all states and territories. Congress’s amendment extending that ban to cockfighting in all jurisdictions therefore applies to the NMI,” the USDOJ added.
Salas, through attorney Joseph Horey, has asked the federal court to issue a judgment declaring that Section 12616 of the Agriculture Improvement Act or AIA and 7 U.S.C. § 2156 are not applicable to or effective in the Northern Marianas.
The lawsuit also asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the U.S. government and its agents from enforcing Section 12616 of the AIA, or 7 U.S.C. § 2156, or any other provisions of statutory or regulatory law that depend on its validity, in the Northern Marianas.
Salas said he engaged in cockfighting when it was legal and wishes to do so again without fear of prosecution.
His lawsuit stated that the Covenant establishing the political union between the United States and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands effectively exempts the CNMI from federal prohibitions on cockfighting.
But according to the USDOJ, the federal government has imposed prohibitions on animal fighting in the states and the territories since 1976.
“Initially, these prohibitions exempted fights involving live birds (i.e., cockfights) in areas where such fights were legal under state or territorial law. Between 1976 and 2014, Congress progressively limited this exemption through various legislative actions before closing it altogether in 2018,” the USDOJ stated.
“Plaintiff argues that the 2018 amendment did not apply to the several states because all 50 of the states had already outlawed cockfighting themselves. But that argument ignores the actual action taken by Congress, which was to fully remove the exception permitting certain aspects of cockfighting ventures depending on the law of the local jurisdiction. Should any state choose to legalize cockfighting now, it would remain illegal under federal law, demonstrating that the 2018 amendment unquestionably applies to the 50 states and territories,” the USDOJ stated.
As to Salas’ argument that banning cockfighting intrudes upon a purely local concern in the CNMI and is therefore forbidden by Sections 103 and 105 of the Covenant, USDOJ trial attorney Johnny H. Walker III said, “By definition, however, the cockfighting banned by federal law is not purely internal to the NMI; the statute targets only animal fighting that is ‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.’”
“And even if there were an intrusion on the internal affairs of the Northern Mariana Islands, it is justified by federal interests in regulating an activity that impacts interstate commerce and that has been connected to the interstate and foreign spread of disease,” Walker added.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim that is supported by law and should be dismissed with prejudice,” he said.
